WP/7028/2001 of N.Ganapathi Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the order passed by the District Collectorvide his proceedings dated 29.11.1999 cancellingthe caste certificate issued to the petitioner asconfirmed by the appellate authority videG.O.Ms.No.103, Social Welfare (CV.1) Departmentdated 18.11.2000 as arbitrary and illegal.

According to the petitioner, he belongs to Beda Jangam Community, whose traditional occupation isto perform funeral rites of the deceased Harijansand other sudras in the village and to officiate aspriests at death ceremonies. Beda Jangam castewas notified as one of the scheduled castes in thenotification issued by the Central Government witheffect from 16.12.1977. The occupation of theforefathers of the petitioner was also to beg alms inhouses of are called asHarijans. They “Vibhudidaries”. It is stated that there are three sub-castes in Jangam Community, they are (1)Beda (Budge) Jangam (2) Mala Jangam (3)Jangam. Previously there were no specialconcessions in Educational Institutions andappointments in Andhra Region recognizing the subcastes in Jangam Community. Therefore, all thepersons belonging to any of the sub castes arebeing issued Jangam B.C. Certificates withoutmentioning any sub caste. The Jangam or Jangalucaste people were also not particular for mentioningtheir sub castes. According to their traditionaloccupation, habits and hereditary customs,petitioner is identified as ‘Beda Jangam’. Still theyare attending the funeral rites of the deceasedharijans, Girijans and other sudras in the village byringing a bell and blowing the Shanku and attending to the appraisal of the Harijans andGirijans at their houses during the festivals etc fromthe times immemorial.

It is further stated that after passing Englishand Telugu shorthand and Typewriting Higher Grades and after becoming graduate, he applied forBeda Jangam caste certificate in the year 1984 inaccordance with the Memo issued by the Director,Social Welfare Department, Govt of AP.,Hyderabad in L.Dis.No.7486/82/E1, dated16.4.1982 to the District Collector and to thecompetent authority. The Tahsildar, Palakondaafter making through enquiries issued castecertificate to him on 4.8.1984 as ‘Beda Jangam’. It is also stated that the LIC of India,Visakhapatnam Division has notified certainvacancies of Stenographer (English) posts in itsdivision. The petitioner applied for the said postand he was successful in the examination andinterview held by LIC and after selection he wasasked to produce caste certificate afresh on theproforma given by the LIC of India. Accordingly, heapproached the Tahasildar, Palakonda andrequested him to issue the caste certificate. TheTahasildar, Palakonda issued the fresh certificateon 31-1-1985 on the proforma issued by the LIC, onthe strength of the caste certificate earlier issued to

him on 4.8.1984. While the matter stood thus, theLIC of India has sought for information from revenueauthorities as to whether the petitioner belongs toBeda Jangam Caste or not. Thereupon, the DistrictCollector, Srikakulam addressed a letter dated8.9.1996 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja toconduct enquiry and submit the report about thecaste of the petitioner. The Mandal RevenueOfficer, Burja conducted enquiry on 20.4.1987 andsubmitted his report stating that the petitionerbelongs to Beda Jangam caste, thereby, he belongsto the Scheduled Caste. However, again a noticewas issued directing the petitioner to be present inthe office on 25.1.1989. Accordingly, thepetitioner’s brother and mother attended the office,but no questions were asked by the MandalRevenue Officer and they have waited till eveningand later returned to their home. The MandalRevenue Officer issued a notice onagain 18.2.1989 asking him to produce the educationalqualifications and information about the relatives. Thereafter, the petitioner sent in writing to the Mandal Revenue officer about the history andparticulars of Beda Jangam with registered postacknowledgement due on 23.2.1989. It appearsthat the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam heldan enquiry behind the petitioner and submitted hisreport dated 14.7.1989 to the Collector. It alsofurther appears that the Mandal Revenue Officer,Burja also prepared a report dated 13.6.1989 whichwereis against the petitioner. No witnesses examined in the presence of the petitioner either bythe Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam or theMandal Revenue Officer, Burja and no statementfrom any one recorded in the presence of thepetitioner. However, on the basis of RevenueDivisional Officer’s report dated 14.7.1987 and thereport of Mandal Revenue Officer dated 13.6.1989,a show cause notice was issued to the petitioneron 30.7.1989. The petitioner submitted hisexplanation on 28.8.1989 and produced witnessesbefore the Collector for enquiry. No witnesseswere examined by the Collector on 28.8.1989. Thepetitioner submitted an elaborate explanation denying the allegations made in the show causenotice issued to him. Thereafter, the Collectorissued notice to the petitioner on 16.6.1992directing the petitioner to appear before him on29.6.1992 at 11-00 A.M. Accordingly, the petitionerattended and submitted the reports of the RevenueDivisional Officer and the Mandal RevenueOfficer. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide hisletter dated 6.4.1993 asked the petitioner to appearbefore him on 20.4.1993 in the office of MandalRevenue Officer, Burja. The petitioner appearedbefore the Revenue Divisional Officer along with thewitnesses on that day. Ultimately, the DistrictCollector cancelled the caste certificate dated31.1.1985 issued to the petitioner by an order dated30.9.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionerfiled a writ petition No.20375 of 1994 and the samewas allowed by directing the Collector to give noticeto the petitioner and hold the enquiry in accordancewith Law. Thereafter, a notice was issued to thepetitioner before the Scrutiny Committee on20.5.1999. The petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and furnished all theinformation and documents as directed by them. Further, the Collector seems to have made somediscreet enquiries and called for a report from theRevenue Divisional Officer. The copy of the saidreport was not furnished to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Social Welfareand the Deputy Superintendent of Police alsoconducted some enquiries behind the back of thepetitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passedby the District Collector as confirmed by theappellate authority is arbitrary and illegal and liableto be set aside.

A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed bythe official respondents. But, nothing has beenspecifically stated as to whether any enquiry wasconducted in the presence of the petitioner andwhether he was given an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, if any, examined duringthe course of enquiry. In the entire counter, it issimply stated that discreet enquiries wereconducted. Further, it is stated that the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Srikakulam hasconducted elaborate and discreet enquiry by givingan opportunity in accordance with Rule 8 (d) 1 to 7of A.P.SC/ST/BC issue of Community, Nativity, Dateof Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 and finally opinedthat there are no valid grounds to declare that thepetitioner belongs to Beda Jangam (SC) castesince he belongs to Jangam (BC) caste by birthand recommended for cancellation of SC BedaJangam Caste certificate which was fraudulentlyobtained by the petitioner. Except this, there is noreply for the allegations asserted by the petitionerwith regard to conducting of enquiry behind theback of the petitioner and no opportunity was givento him either to cross examine any witnessesduring the course of examination by the officers orbefore the District Level Committee.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion thatthe enquiry conducted by the District Level ScrutinyCommittee, Srikakulam as confirmed by theGovernment of A.P. vide impugned G.O is in grossviolation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order is set aside and the matter isremanded to the District Level Scrutiny Committeefor conducting a fresh enquiry as per A.P. (SC, ST &BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community CertificatesAct, 1993 & Rules, 1997, and the parties shall bepermitted to adduce evidence both oral anddocumentary and the petitioner shall also bepermitted to cross examine the witnesses on otherside. No costs.

rkk

__________

29-12-2006